Comments (42)

Probably not, but there's a more carefully hidden upcharge in the very complex and obscure formula for taxing businesses based on the vehicle trips they are thought to generate. Ten percent of this tax, and more, will go to the administrative costs of collecting and enforcing it. As opposed to a gas tax hike which, in those terms, would carry no additional costs. Leaving aside for just a second the fact that we are being held up as a result of the city's skewed priorities, are we not shooting ourselves in the foot by resisting the gas tax hike?

"are we not shooting ourselves in the foot by resisting the gas tax hike"

No, because if you vote for a gas tax hike, then you'll have a higher gas tax AND a house-by-house + business "street fee." Do you really not understand how Oregon government works yet?

A good academic project once this is imposed without a vote of the people would be to poll all the businesses in town (shouldn't take long) and ask them how many vehicle trips the City assigned them. Then add them all up and compare them to the hilariously inflated figures Tri-Met claims for ridership.

Allan L.: Do you own a business in Portland Allan? How would you feel if you are being asked to pay an additional $80-100.00 every month to the City IN ADDITION to the $7-800.00 annual tax being paid for TriMet? How much money do these people need for their transportation dreams?
Sorry - but if they are going to collect signatures to squash SCAM ADAMS "road" package, we will collect at least a few dozen right here at my office.

Big O: Most of the money, about $340 million, would go for pavement, fixing every major street in Portland.JK: Paving means adding bike lanes and bubble curbs. The bubble curbs are so that TriMet buses have an excuse to block traffic every time they stop. Just another case of Trimet NOT caring. And Sam not caring about congestion.

Big O: The fee would also allow police traffic enforcement on freeways within the city, which currently aren't patrolled.JK: How come I see police stops on Portland freeways?

Big O: Under Adams' proposal, households would pay $4.54 a month, added to their water and sewer bills. Businesses would pay a fee based on the amount of traffic they generate. Officials estimate that most businesses would pay an average of $33 a month, but large companies could pay much more.JK: And the biggest source of street damage - Trimet PAYS NOTHING.

Big O: McDonough said the business community understands the impact of bad roads and congestion, particularly on the movement of freight.JK: I’ve got a big surprise for McDonough: Sam, repeatedly refused to say that there would congestion relief except for improved signal timing. Most of the other proposals WILL INCREASE CONGESTION:
Bike lanes take away road capacity.
Bubble curbs increase congestion.
Bike boxes will increase congestion by preventing right turns on red.

Big O: Paul Romain, lobbyist for the Oregon Petroleum Association, ....
said the city wouldn't be in so much trouble if it had spent its money wisely over the past 15 years.
..."You have a $34 million surplus right now. Why aren't you talking about that for road maintenance?" he asked.
...Romain said his group would decide after the council vote next week whether to seek the 18,000 signatures needed to put the fee ordinance on the May ballot.JK: Finally someone who gets it. Where do I sign?

Big O: "We looked behind the curtain to see if we were being told the facts. Sadly, we were," Spellman said. "The backlog is real. The backlog is growing."JK: This guy really should look at where the money is currently being spent: Everything EXCEPT road capacity.

Anon: I don't practice law. I'm not sure why this matters, or why the answer to an unasked question is sought to refute arguments that were not made. My original post here complained that the proposed charge would be expensive to calculate and collect, and would indirectly burden individual residents through the obscure business fees. The point was that if more money is needed for infrastructure, a gas tax is a more efficient way of collecting it. If you want to argue, argue with that. And try to be civil.

Why is our water and sewer bill getting taxed for more traffic patrols and asphalt?

If Sam had any cajones, he'd be talking City of Portland Income Tax. Except for that pesky little mayoral election.

The muni credit card game is coming to an end (issuing more bonds), and there's no way that Mayor Adams is going to make do with current revenues. Schools, neighborhood sewer pipes, and parks buildings are all in dire need of upgrades and replacements. They won't fix themselves.

Allan L.; as I and others have posted before, Sam was responsible in lobbying to extract over $138 Million of STIP dollars (dollars from Oregon's gas tax)in this year alone for 140 projects defined as bike paths, pedestrian improvements, trolleys, light rail, shared rider programs, commuter education, etc. The $138M is just for City of Portland alone. These STIP gas tax dollars are stipulated, "committed funds for road improvements". But they are going elsewhere.

Log onto ODOT, Allan, to confirm. Will you answer to this fact, because Sam never has?

Lee, I'm not defending the city's spending priorities up to now. I think that would be a steep hill to climb. But we are at the point where we have some of these lovely amenities, and a neglected infrastructure, with inadequate resources currently on tap (unless I am missing something, which I would hope may be the case) to fix it. We need a bridge where the Sellwood Bridge is; and money needs to be spent to fix our crumbling streets and roads. Where will it come from? It doesn't seem to me to help the situation to point critically at the places where money was spent. That money is gone.

I'm not defending the city's spending priorities up to now. I think that would be a steep hill to climb. But we are at the point where we have some of these lovely amenities...

To the degree that you're willing to blow off the millions spent because of misdirected priorities and not question the officials and policies responsible, I don't sense that we're talking about the same subject. To expect that somehow NOW the same folks, in the same positions, with the same information, won't do the same things with the same results is...

I don't begrudge you your skepticism about the incumbents; in fact, I share it. But so what? Are we going to just limp along with declining infrastructure? I don't find it satisfactory to criticize our local government, point to its failures as an excuse for choosing not to address major problems, and stop there. In fact, it sounds more like a pretext for selfishness.

CC is right, we're not talking about the same thing. He's talking about why Sam should be defeated in the upcoming Mayoral race. Allan is talking about whether we need more taxpayer money to fix our transportation infrastructure. The argument against Sam may be relevant to this election, but it's not relevant to getting our streets fixed. If Dozono is elected, do you think he's going to somehow find $400 million over the next 15 years to fix our streets? Maybe if he fired half the police, or only put out half the fires in the city, but otherwise it's not going to happen.

As for those obsessed with how much PDX spends on bike lanes, trolleys, and light rail, don't you think the simplest explanation is that the voters of Portland like those things? There's a simple reason Adams and Sten and the others keep getting elected -- because they're doing what the voters want them to do.

lin qiao Lose the goofy rhetoric about bike lanes. The bike-commuter voting bloc (assuming there even is one) is mighty small.

I definitely do not fancy Sam Adams as mayor but why that prospect is getting all mixed up here with the need for road improvements is a mystery.JK: Guess you didn’t notice all those MILLIONS of road money that Sam spent on bikes, buses and reducing road capacity, while ignoring the majority that drives cars because cars are better, more convenient and cheaper than transit.

Sam wasted the money and now wants up to make up for the loss. Reminds one of Stenn’s water bureau.

Then there was the PGE park fiasco.
The tram & Portland feeding city money to OHSU to claim that the city paid less than it really did.

PS, lin, have you noticed that scientists are finally starting to speak out against alarmist warming?
Have you noticed that the USHCN shows cooling since 1998, the year tied with 1934 as the warmest?
Have you noticed that the warmest years in 400 are now spread throughout the 20th century, not in the 1990s. (note to lurkers: 400 years ago is widely recognized as “the little ice age”, so it is natural to warm up after such an event - the question has been wether or not the warming in the latter part of the 20th century has been unusual.)

Allan L; you may be "obtuse" again. You stated that the $138M in STIP gas tax money "is gone". The $138M was for this tax year only. I thought it was obvious that there are years to come with STIP dollars continuing.

As Sam lobbied for the $138M to go to his non-street pet projects at the state legislature and ODOT, he was lobbying at our neighborhood association, and many others that we had a "transportation infrastructure crisis". He stated that he would lead in "studying" how the city could respond to this "crisis". He disguised the word "taxes" at our Feb. 07 meeting. An obvious solution to Sam's "crisis" is for Sam to prioritize just $27 Million of the $138M (19%) for 15 years for roads. If you factor in increased gas tax revenue because of biofuel requirements(due to reduced mileage per gallon), increase in miles driven and vehicle numbers the money for roads could increase and help the problem in even a shorter time line. But Sam doesn't get it, his policy is different, and that is why a different mayor than Sam is needed.

When the PDC stops lining the pockets of their friends with our property tax dollars and free real estate we'll know the incompetence and corruption may be subsiding.
However, any rhetoric (Allen) that Sam Adams and the current council represent remedies, when they are the genesis throughout the problems, serves only to perpetuate them and avoid any turning of the ship.

No doubt there are plenty of defenders (Oregonaina, Tribune, PortlandTransport.com)
but those who sit silent (BlueOregon) all along the way are the most troubling. Because it wouldn't take much at all to light up the status quo and audit our way to change if some of these loudest activists weren't so missing in action
on the local front.

Dan: Because it wouldn't take much at all to light up the status quo and audit our way to change if some of these loudest activists weren't so missing in action on the local front.JK: The problem is that some of our loudest activists are probably city or PDC or consultants or contractors or developers – people profiting from all this. Jack has outed a number of city employees here.

Other advocates got hoodwinked by them and a few are true believers that believe the planning “profession” and greens when they FALSELY claim:
* High density reduces congestion
* High density saves money
* Mass transit costs less than driving a car
* Mass transit uses less energy than readily available cars.
A quick look at the real numbers shows that each of the above is untrue.
See DebunkingPortland.com